[Lnc-business] LNC business list volume and email communication style
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Mon Aug 20 18:08:43 EDT 2018
Whoa.... back up that horse dude. I ain’t gonna let that slide. You are
WAY out of bounds.
Where did I:
Call you a tyrant
Call Chuck (one of my best friends in the LP) a latent misogynist
The other two I did. And you have done equally.
But sir, you are way out of line particularly regarding Chuck - wayyyyyy
out of line.
And I would say - as I am sick and tired of every single time I bring up
potential gender concerns - having it twisted.
Our Policy Manual allows these concerns. And I’m really over not having
them heard respectfully.
There have been past women LNC members who observed the same thing and said
their concerns were not being heard.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 3:31 PM Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> I hesitated whether to reply, but since we're at a point, in my opinion,
> where most LNC members seem to have given up wading through the flotsam
> of the e-mail list to do business, I figure I should give it a last try.
> Mr. Longstreth said that he thinks it may be a good thing that the LNC
> list is "more active," but I disagree in that it's becoming more active
> among fewer engaged people. An echo chamber effect emerges - five or six
> people emailing scores of emails to each other about something gets
> confused for something with broad support.
>
> Regarding the claim that Ms. Harlos's email style is appropriate when
> viewed through a female lens, what I can add is that I work extensively
> as a colleague with hundreds of operations and HR professionals across
> the country, both of which are female-predominant fields. I'm at
> in-person roundtables and on e-mail lists, often in a small minority of
> men. On those lists, I have not seen a norm of everyone replying to
> every email, responding to express support or opposition to every email,
> or sending 4 emails in a row instead of one when responding. In fact
> I've participated in HR working groups, as the only man, that drew up HR
> policies describing such practices as employee manual violations.
>
> I read the articles in the Harvard Business Review every other month, I
> interact regularly with over a thousand state officials and several
> hundred business leaders, and work closely with dozens of leaders of
> organizations at the federal and state level. That list includes many,
> many successful women whom I admire and respect. And none engage in that
> described e-mail conduct.
>
> Frequent replies are tolerable if they're a continuing building on each
> other's ideas, sharing achievements, and working through problems with a
> back-and-forth. Ms. Harlos referenced this in saying building personal
> relationships is important for our ability to work together, and a
> back-and-forth is helpful for that. Others have expressed similar
> wishes. I don't disagree.
>
> Assuming that to be true, however, that nevertheless describes few of
> our e-mails. Ms. Harlos has sent emails to the LNC list calling me a
> dictator, Mr. Moulton a latent misogynist, Ms. Hogarth rude, Mr.
> Phillips hysterical and devoid of rationality, etc. If the goal there is
> to build personal relationships, I don't see it happening that way.
> There have been other offenders - I still remember being shocked when
> Ms. Adams described a proposal of mine (the JC acknowledgement one) as
> "bullshit," "unacceptable," "gross," "vile," and "sickening." Many
> others have had moments of incivility. But what Mr. Moulton catalogued
> in his email is like nothing I've encountered before - and I was a
> libertarian in the Berkeley student government, which is tensely civil
> and barely functional at its best.
>
> My schedule has been awful in the last few months and I've only been
> able to talk on the phone with about a quarter of you so far, fewer than
> I had hoped and promised. Of those of you I have spoken with, there are
> many amazing ideas for building up party infrastructure, getting people
> elected and re-elected, and filling a massive gap being left by the
> chaos in the Republican and Democratic parties. I'd love to be able to
> hash such things out on the list to make good ideas even better in
> advance of our meetings. But that's not going to happen unless we stop
> calling people names when they float ideas or cast votes, stop
> derisively dismissing each other when they disagree, and stop sending
> repetitive or multiple emails in reply whenever anyone expresses an
> opinion. These are not "different styles of communicating," it's
> bullying and abusive.
>
> If we don't stop doing those things, you can move the discussion to
> whatever forum or format you want, but the poison will follow us there.
>
> For these reasons, I formally object to setting up any LNC discussion
> forum, bulletin board, Facebook group, PHP setup or server, or system
> other than the existing e-mail list and our in-person meetings.
>
> JBH
>
> ------------
> Joe Bishop-Henchman
> LNC Member (At-Large)
> joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
> www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
>
> On 2018-08-20 06:59, Richard Longstreth wrote:
> > Chuck,
> >
> > I appreciate your input as well. From my point of view I have to say
> > that if I see an email I wish to respond to, I will. The reason is
> > that chatter and discussion is exactly how deliberation takes place.
> > For too long the LNC has accomplished less than what it is capable of
> > and that is at least in some part to people not being actively engaged
> > in email discussion. You can review the past. Typically I don't
> > respond where unecessary, however, I reserve the right and encourage
> > all LNC members to respond to whatever email they see fit.
> >
> > As far as an off email discussion forum where business is not done but
> > things are workshopped: I would think that solution to be amicable to
> > you as it greatly reduces non essential email and chatter to another
> > area where those interested would be free to peruse and those who just
> > want business could just pay attention to email.
> >
> > Bottom line: Everyone in the LNC was elected to do a job. I do not
> > believe that we can handicap anyone's ability to do that job by
> > telling them they can only respond to email if it's new to the
> > conversation, they've deliberated themselves for hours, the email
> > contains more than a dis/agreement statement (heck a vote is simply I
> > agree or disagree with no explanation needed), etc.
> >
> > I appreciate your comments and respect your thought process but I am
> > happy to see the LNC becoming more active and encourage each member to
> > serve in whatever capacity they see fit.
> >
> > Richard Longstreth
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018, 22:57 Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Chuck, you wrote an extraordinarily long email. One thing to
> >> clarify for those who do not know- Chuck and I are very good
> >> friends, and his email didn’t bother me personally in the least as
> >> we have built that kind of relationship.
> >>
> >> But in thematic overview, I emphatically disagree. You spent a
> >> great deal of time trying to make things into your own image.
> >>
> >> I will focus on one unspoken factor here: gender.
> >>
> >> And I know some of the other women will want to scream. I am NOT
> >> speaking for you. But I am talking about norms here and not
> >> individuals.
> >>
> >> My communication style (and since that Google memo came out which
> >> caused such a hubbub this subject has been an interest to me, I.e.,
> >> was he right that tech companies don’t have as many women because
> >> they basically require women to act like men? And I wondered the
> >> same about politics) is very very common to women.
> >>
> >> I work in a female dominated industry (insurance legal defense and
> >> the paralegal field is very pink collar) and this is not unusual.
> >> This is how we speak.
> >>
> >> So Chuck while I think there was a lot of good advice that I
> >> certainly will take for efficiency reasons, I ask you to consider
> >> that you are asking me to communicate like a typical corporate male,
> >> and I must decline.
> >>
> >> And here is the funny thing about all the gendered discussion that
> >> has come up recently. I am not even a feminist. I never paid
> >> attention to this stuff until it hit me in the face last year when
> >> the LNC sat there and let another LNC member basically say to me
> >> that my husband will just give me a position and absolutely no
> >> discussion was held about that. In fact when I tried to object I was
> >> summarily shut down. I didn’t want to escalate as a Policy Manual
> >> complaint as I felt it was all unintentional but unintentional
> >> sexism is still sexism. It set me down a path of examining
> >> inadvertent and unrecognized gender biases in our communications.
> >>
> >> I think the LNC and the Party have a long way to go to truly
> >> incorporating women into its spaces. Most Libertarian women tend to
> >> very analytical (I certainly am
> >> That) with masculine communication styles. If we are going to grow,
> >> we have to break the mold and realize heart and chatter is
> >> important. Back and forth is how relationships form.
> >>
> >> So I decline Chuck. And the only real criticism I have of your
> >> missive is that you could have taken your iwn interpersonal advice
> >> and called me first.
> >>
> >> You are one of my closest LP friends. That’s not a lot to ask.
> >>
> >> -Caryn Ann
> >>
> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 6:39 PM Chuck Moulton <chuck at moulton.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Libertarian National Committee members,
> >>>
> >>> I write in my personal capacity as a life member of the
> >>> Libertarian
> >>> Party, not representing any of the bodies I serve on. I apologize
> >>> in
> >>> advance for the length of this email... it has been brewing for a
> >>> while.
> >>>
> >>> I'm extremely concerned by the conduct of the LNC on the business
> >>> email
> >>> list. I want to speak not on the substantive business itself, but
> >>>
> >>> rather on the volume and style of email communication.
> >>>
> >>> Fundamentally, I believe some LNC members misunderstand the entire
> >>>
> >>> purpose of the business email list and are trying to
> >>> re-conceptualize it
> >>> into something completely different. You are on the business list
> >>> as a
> >>> deliberative body to discuss the business of the party and vote on
> >>>
> >>> motions taking action as a board. Some of you appear to be using
> >>> it as
> >>> a 24/7 stream-of-consciousness liberty rant.
> >>>
> >>> The volume of email on this list is NOT NORMAL. It is
> >>> emphatically
> >>> ABNORMAL. Some of you may not be aware of how crazy it is because
> >>> you
> >>> are new to the LNC. I invite you to look at the volume and
> >>> content of
> >>> email on the list from 4 or 5 years ago. Although 1 person is the
> >>>
> >>> primary culprit of the ongoing problems -- and I'm not going to be
> >>>
> >>> diplomatic or pull punches: that person is Caryn Ann Harlos (who I
> >>>
> >>> supported in convention and voted for) --, I suspect some of the
> >>> newer
> >>> members are following her lead to varying degrees with respect to
> >>> how
> >>> they conduct themselves. This is a BIG problem.
> >>>
> >>> I completely agree with Joe Bishop-Henchmen, who recently sent the
> >>>
> >>> following 2 emails:
> >>>
> >>> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
> >>>> Efforts to work are welcome. Sending 68 emails in four days
> >>> saying
> >>>> the same thing over and over, rushing to immediately respond to
> >>>> every. single. email. as if one has a duty to rise to the
> >>> challenge
> >>>> for truth, justice, and the American Way, is counterproductive.
> >>>>
> >>>> I often sleep on an email before I reply to it, if it's
> >>> important but
> >>>> not urgent. Most people are very careful with how they write
> >>> emails,
> >>>> with meanings that take a couple of readings. If I rush to get
> >>> my
> >>>> word in edgewise, I miss that and people notice that I'm not
> >>> hearing
> >>>> what they're trying to say.
> >>>
> >>> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
> >>>> if it's my email inbox you're cluttering up, it's not merely a
> >>>> personal matter. It's a basic courtesy that every workplace
> >>> teaches.
> >>>>
> >>>> We should want this list to be a place to do business, not a
> >>> Facebook
> >>>> argument thread.
> >>>
> >>> The LNC is supposed to act as a deliberative body on the LNC
> >>> business
> >>> list. Many of you are not being deliberative. I think many of
> >>> you do
> >>> not want to be deliberative.
> >>>
> >>> More than 90% of the emails sent to your list are completely
> >>> useless.
> >>> In fact, saying 10% of the emails are useful is extremely
> >>> generous. The
> >>> reason this happens is some of you lack basic email courtesy.
> >>>
> >>> Before discussing what sorts of emails should not be sent, I think
> >>> it
> >>> may help to step back and consider why email courtesy and the
> >>> style of
> >>> email communication is important.
> >>>
> >>> First, it takes longer for 1 person to compose an email than for 1
> >>>
> >>> person to read that email; however, when 25 LNC members + several
> >>> staff
> >>> members + many other interested LP members read that email, you
> >>> need to
> >>> multiply the individual reading time for each email by the number
> >>> of
> >>> people reading it. For example, if an email takes 5 minutes to
> >>> compose
> >>> and 1 minute for each individual to read and 40 people read that
> >>> email,
> >>> then a 5 minute investment by the sender costs 40 minutes for the
> >>> recipients. That may be all well and good if the content is
> >>> useful; on
> >>> the other hand, if the content is useless, then you have wasted a
> >>> lot of
> >>> time.
> >>>
> >>> Second, when the total email volume is so high that it is not
> >>> practical
> >>> to read all the email, recipients must skip some email. While
> >>> trying to
> >>> cut out reading the useless email, other list members may
> >>> inadvertently
> >>> miss important email. If the volume of email were lower and the
> >>> signal
> >>> to noise ratio were higher, then important emails would not be
> >>> overlooked.
> >>>
> >>> In a deliberative body, members ought to deliberate, which means
> >>> "engage
> >>> in long and careful consideration". Somewhere between reading
> >>> something
> >>> and responding to it, your brain ought to be involved in the
> >>> process.
> >>> Instead of simply replying to another LNC member's thoughts by
> >>> robotically and immediately answering the question "What is my
> >>> opinion
> >>> on what he or she just said?", you should be giving yourself
> >>> several
> >>> minutes (or ideally hours) to digest what was said. You should be
> >>>
> >>> asking yourself "Would my response add anything to the
> >>> discussion?",
> >>> "Have I already said this before?", "Would someone reading my
> >>> reply
> >>> learn something new?", "Does it need to be sent to the whole
> >>> list?",
> >>> "Could I write this more succinctly?", etc.
> >>>
> >>> Here are a few steps LNC members could take to use basic email
> >>> courtesy
> >>> and decrease the insane list volume:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Eliminate all emails which simply agree or disagree without
> >>> reasoning. About half the emails to the list are things like "I
> >>> agree
> >>> with X." or "+1" or "so. much. this." or "me too", or the opposite
> >>>
> >>> (disagreeing). I believe this is the Facebook culture permeating
> >>> and
> >>> infecting email lists. You all apparently want a like button.
> >>> This is
> >>> completely useless and wastes everyone's time. Instead I would
> >>> suggest
> >>> either making additional discussion points which have not been
> >>> brought
> >>> up yet, or just not emailing at all. If one absolutely must feed
> >>> ego by
> >>> hacking together a like button, I would suggest just replying to
> >>> the
> >>> sender directly rather than to the whole list. Or you could
> >>> create a
> >>> Twitter account that posts a link to the LNC business post
> >>> followed by a
> >>> thumbs up emoji or a frownie face.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Do not post redundant discussion -- even when it is actually
> >>> germane.
> >>> Some of you post identical talking points over and over and over
> >>>
> >>> again. We get your position. Your redundancy is not winning you
> >>> any
> >>> converts; it is just annoying people. If you want to add to the
> >>> discussion, then you should make points you have not brought up
> >>> before.
> >>>
> >>> 3. Reply directly to people rather than to the whole list.
> >>> Frequently
> >>> LNC members ask the LNC for help on some task and their colleagues
> >>>
> >>> oblige. At least 75% of the time they could just email a reply
> >>> directly
> >>> rather than CCing the rest of the LNC. Whenever you send an
> >>> email, you
> >>> should be asking yourself whether it is actually useful
> >>> information for
> >>> everybody or just targeted at one person.
> >>>
> >>> 4. Trim your emails. Some LNC members complained in the past
> >>> about 300
> >>> links at the bottom of the email. This only happens because most
> >>> of you
> >>> copy the last 50 years of discussion every single email. Most of
> >>> what
> >>> you haphazardly quote is completely irrelevant. In more than half
> >>> of
> >>> the emails you send, you are only addressing a single sentence or
> >>> paragraph of the last email. Cut out the rest. Only quote what
> >>> you are
> >>> actually replying to. That makes email discussion a lot easier to
> >>>
> >>> follow -- and has the added benefit of taking less space and
> >>> avoiding
> >>> 300 links as garbage. I would suggest emailing on actual
> >>> computers
> >>> rather than phones, but note even phones allow quoting: on an
> >>> iPhone
> >>> highlight 1 sentence, then click the reply button.
> >>>
> >>> 5. Think before you send. In most cases it is possible (and
> >>> advisable)
> >>> to sit on an email for 24 hours. If a day is too long, then try
> >>> waiting
> >>> 4 hours. Waiting can be calming, make your reply more logical,
> >>> and help
> >>> you avoid writing things which are misinterpreted. I've found
> >>> when I
> >>> sit on an email for 24 hours, 75% of the time I decide not to send
> >>> it.
> >>> The other 25% of the time, I make several edits which fix spelling
> >>> or
> >>> grammar errors, make my point clearer, tone it down, or avoid
> >>> misinterpretation.
> >>>
> >>> 6. Consolidate emails. When I am following an email discussion,
> >>> sometimes I see 4 different points by 4 different people on the
> >>> same
> >>> topic which I want to address. Instead of sending 4 emails, I
> >>> send one
> >>> email which quotes each of them and replies appropriately. This
> >>> saves
> >>> on email volume and also helps you compose your thoughts better
> >>> and be
> >>> less redundant.
> >>>
> >>> 7. Change the subject line when the thread shifts focus. This can
> >>> make
> >>> the discussion easier to follow rather than having to sift through
> >>>
> >>> emails with completely unrelated subjects.
> >>>
> >>> 8. Check your spelling, grammar, and usage. I cringe every time I
> >>> read
> >>> emails misusing "its" and "it's", "your" and "you're", etc. We
> >>> are the
> >>> third largest political party in the United States... when our
> >>> national
> >>> committee writes unprofessionally it reflects poorly on the
> >>> organization. (Many people use bad spelling, grammar, and usage
> >>> as a
> >>> proxy to infer stupidity or poor education.) This is especially
> >>> important with respect to language on which you vote.
> >>>
> >>> 9. If you are feeling hotheaded or think something you are saying
> >>> may be
> >>> misinterpreted, then get a second opinion before sending it. Ask
> >>> your
> >>> spouse or friend to read over your email.
> >>>
> >>> 10. Respect the opinions of others. It is incredibly rude to
> >>> browbeat a
> >>> colleague because you don't like his or her vote. The vote speaks
> >>> for
> >>> itself. Allow others to disagree in peace. If you actually
> >>> believe you
> >>> can change someone's mind, it would be more respectful to pick up
> >>> the
> >>> phone and call your colleague to have a real discussion (i.e.,
> >>> actively
> >>> listen seeing where he is coming from and how you can change his
> >>> mind,
> >>> instead of just talking at him) rather than publicly lambasting
> >>> him for
> >>> the vote.
> >>>
> >>> 11. You do not need to reply to everything. Don't worry: we
> >>> probably
> >>> already know your opinion without you replying anyway. Failing to
> >>>
> >>> respond to an email does not mean you concede a debate point.
> >>> Also,
> >>> your audience will not assume you are sleeping at the wheel. If
> >>> just
> >>> two people on a list believe they must respond to every email,
> >>> then that
> >>> by definition will create an infinite number of emails.
> >>>
> >>> 12. Concision is better than verbosity. Sometimes it takes longer
> >>> to
> >>> write a short message than a long message; however, your
> >>> colleagues will
> >>> appreciate the former. As FDR once said: "Be sincere, be brief,
> >>> be seated."
> >>>
> >>> 13. Remember the audience and the purpose of the list. If you
> >>> wouldn't
> >>> say something in a LNC meeting, you probably shouldn't say it on
> >>> the LNC
> >>> business list.
> >>>
> >>> I believe if all LNC members mostly followed those bits of basic
> >>> email
> >>> courtesy, the volume of the list would be dramatically reduced
> >>> without
> >>> sacrificing any of the actual discussion.
> >>>
> >>> I see the LNC is now discussing moving discussion to phpBB. That
> >>> is a
> >>> TERRIBLE idea. The only reason this list is dysfunctional in the
> >>> first
> >>> place is several members -- particularly Caryn Ann Harlos -- are
> >>> not
> >>> following basic email courtesy. Moving all or part of the
> >>> discussion to
> >>> another forum would just make that discussion even harder to
> >>> follow.
> >>> Additionally, it would further exacerbate the volume problem. The
> >>> very
> >>> people causing the problem in the first place are those who want
> >>> to move
> >>> to a different venue. They want to do this because other media
> >>> are more
> >>> conducive to what they actually want: a 24/7
> >>> stream-of-consciousness
> >>> liberty rant. Email is more deliberative than phpBB. phpBB is
> >>> more
> >>> deliberative than Slack. Slack is more deliberative than
> >>> Facebook.
> >>> Facebook is more deliberative than texting. The LNC should be a
> >>> deliberative group.
> >>>
> >>> If some members of the LNC are unable to act with a modicum of
> >>> courtesy,
> >>> there is a less restrictive alternative than moving the
> >>> substantive
> >>> discussion to a medium less suited to that purpose. Instead the
> >>> LNC
> >>> could create a second list called (for example) "useless-drivel"
> >>> and LNC
> >>> members could send their extra messages to that list.
> >>>
> >>> I have seen some LNC members defend the practice of subjecting
> >>> others to
> >>> their pollution. Recently, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> >>>
> >>> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
> >>>> Not everyone communicates the same way Joe, and we all have to
> >>> be
> >>>> tolerant of that.
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> Your way is not my way. My way is not your way. And that’s
> >>> okay.
> >>>
> >>> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
> >>>> Joe with all due respect you signed up to part of a group of
> >>> diverse
> >>>> people, not to dictate to them that they must conform to your
> >>>> communication style. I have to tell you that I have zero
> >>> intention of
> >>>> changing my practice
> >>>
> >>> http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
> >>>> PS: I counted them. It wasn't 68. It was in the 40s because I
> >>>> interact with each person's comments. Do people post to the list
> >>> not
> >>>> to get a response?? I am sorry, but it is NOT unreasonable to
> >>> have
> >>>> that many emails when someone is very very active in a group of
> >>> 17
> >>>> people. [...] And like it or not, dealing with this email list
> >>> is
> >>>> part of the job. If we met more often, there would be less
> >>> emails. As
> >>>> I say periodically, the fact that we do not meet monthly is
> >>>> ridiculous to me.
> >>>
> >>> First, she says she must "interact with each person's comments",
> >>> which
> >>> is ridiculous. This is the Facebook culture of reply to
> >>> everything or
> >>> you concede the debate.
> >>>
> >>> Second, she says dealing with this email list is part of the job.
> >>> The
> >>> right to talk does not imply a right to be heard. Time is a
> >>> scarce
> >>> commodity and everyone sensibly makes efficient use of his or or
> >>> time
> >>> through filtering. Chair Sarwark, regional representative Lark,
> >>> and
> >>> at-large member Bishop-Henchman do not write the business list
> >>> often,
> >>> but when they do their emails are well-reasoned and people read
> >>> them.
> >>> In contrast, some LNC members have suggested that Ms. Harlos's
> >>> messages
> >>> go directly into the trash or their spam folder. If I were on the
> >>> LNC,
> >>> I would strongly consider setting up such an email filter. If the
> >>>
> >>> audience isn't listening, that's the fault of the speaker, not the
> >>>
> >>> audience. Be more judicious with your emails and people will not
> >>> skip
> >>> or skim them.
> >>>
> >>> Third, not all communication styles are okay. A bulk email
> >>> marketer
> >>> could say spamming people with unsolicited email is his
> >>> communication
> >>> style. Someone else could say profanity laden rants are his
> >>> communication style. Neither would be acceptable in ordinary
> >>> society or
> >>> in the workplace. When you send emails to a list read by 30-40
> >>> people,
> >>> your communication style imposes costs on others. Ignoring those
> >>> costs
> >>> displays a lack of empathy (bordering on autism). When someone
> >>> sends
> >>> hundreds of useless emails wasting colleagues' time, it would be
> >>> charitable to call such behavior rude; I would call it abusive.
> >>>
> >>> This is going to be a long and frustrating LNC term if some of you
> >>>
> >>> continue disrespecting your colleagues. It doesn't have to be
> >>> that way.
> >>> The LNC can be (and has been) collegial.
> >>>
> >>> With all that said, I advocate the following actions:
> >>>
> >>> 1. I ask the LNC not to move substantive discussion to a different
> >>>
> >>> communication medium than the LNC business email list. As an
> >>> interested
> >>> LP member, I would like to continue to follow such discussion.
> >>>
> >>> 2. I implore LNC members to individually consider the costs their
> >>> communication styles impose on others, and to individually make an
> >>>
> >>> effort to be more respectful to their LNC colleagues (and to
> >>> interested
> >>> observers) by following basic email courtesy.
> >>>
> >>> 3. If the list volume continues to be insane, I request that the
> >>> LNC
> >>> formally adopt the Bishop-Henchman "$1 per email after 5 emails a
> >>> day"
> >>> rule in the LNC Policy Manual at the upcoming in-person LNC
> >>> meeting. (I
> >>> do not comment on whether this would be allowed under the bylaws
> >>> and
> >>> rules, and I would gladly recuse myself if it were appealed; I
> >>> simply am
> >>> declaring I think it would be a good idea.) At least if rude LNC
> >>> members waste many hours of your (really, our) time, the LP ought
> >>> to get
> >>> some money out of it to build the party.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you very much for your time.
> >>>
> >>> Chuck Moulton
> >>> Life Member and Monthly Pledger, Libertarian Party
> >> --
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> IN LIBERTY,
> >> CARYN ANN HARLOS
> >> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -
> >> Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> >> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> >>
> >> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> >> _We defend your rights_
> >> _And oppose the use of force_
> >> _Taxation is theft_
> > --
> >
> > Richard Longstreth
> > Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
> > Libertarian National Committee
> > richard.longstreth at lp.org
> > 931.538.9300
>
--
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
Whoa.... back up that horse dude. I ain’t gonna let that slide. You
are WAY out of bounds.
Where did I:
Call you a tyrant
Call Chuck (one of my best friends in the LP) a latent misogynist
The other two I did. And you have done equally.
But sir, you are way out of line particularly regarding Chuck -
wayyyyyy out of line.
And I would say - as I am sick and tired of every single time I bring
up potential gender concerns - having it twisted.
Our Policy Manual allows these concerns. And I’m really over not
having them heard respectfully.
There have been past women LNC members who observed the same thing and
said their concerns were not being heard.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 3:31 PM Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business
<[1]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
I hesitated whether to reply, but since we're at a point, in my
opinion,
where most LNC members seem to have given up wading through the
flotsam
of the e-mail list to do business, I figure I should give it a last
try.
Mr. Longstreth said that he thinks it may be a good thing that the
LNC
list is "more active," but I disagree in that it's becoming more
active
among fewer engaged people. An echo chamber effect emerges - five or
six
people emailing scores of emails to each other about something gets
confused for something with broad support.
Regarding the claim that Ms. Harlos's email style is appropriate
when
viewed through a female lens, what I can add is that I work
extensively
as a colleague with hundreds of operations and HR professionals
across
the country, both of which are female-predominant fields. I'm at
in-person roundtables and on e-mail lists, often in a small minority
of
men. On those lists, I have not seen a norm of everyone replying to
every email, responding to express support or opposition to every
email,
or sending 4 emails in a row instead of one when responding. In fact
I've participated in HR working groups, as the only man, that drew
up HR
policies describing such practices as employee manual violations.
I read the articles in the Harvard Business Review every other
month, I
interact regularly with over a thousand state officials and several
hundred business leaders, and work closely with dozens of leaders of
organizations at the federal and state level. That list includes
many,
many successful women whom I admire and respect. And none engage in
that
described e-mail conduct.
Frequent replies are tolerable if they're a continuing building on
each
other's ideas, sharing achievements, and working through problems
with a
back-and-forth. Ms. Harlos referenced this in saying building
personal
relationships is important for our ability to work together, and a
back-and-forth is helpful for that. Others have expressed similar
wishes. I don't disagree.
Assuming that to be true, however, that nevertheless describes few
of
our e-mails. Ms. Harlos has sent emails to the LNC list calling me a
dictator, Mr. Moulton a latent misogynist, Ms. Hogarth rude, Mr.
Phillips hysterical and devoid of rationality, etc. If the goal
there is
to build personal relationships, I don't see it happening that way.
There have been other offenders - I still remember being shocked
when
Ms. Adams described a proposal of mine (the JC acknowledgement one)
as
"bullshit," "unacceptable," "gross," "vile," and "sickening." Many
others have had moments of incivility. But what Mr. Moulton
catalogued
in his email is like nothing I've encountered before - and I was a
libertarian in the Berkeley student government, which is tensely
civil
and barely functional at its best.
My schedule has been awful in the last few months and I've only been
able to talk on the phone with about a quarter of you so far, fewer
than
I had hoped and promised. Of those of you I have spoken with, there
are
many amazing ideas for building up party infrastructure, getting
people
elected and re-elected, and filling a massive gap being left by the
chaos in the Republican and Democratic parties. I'd love to be able
to
hash such things out on the list to make good ideas even better in
advance of our meetings. But that's not going to happen unless we
stop
calling people names when they float ideas or cast votes, stop
derisively dismissing each other when they disagree, and stop
sending
repetitive or multiple emails in reply whenever anyone expresses an
opinion. These are not "different styles of communicating," it's
bullying and abusive.
If we don't stop doing those things, you can move the discussion to
whatever forum or format you want, but the poison will follow us
there.
For these reasons, I formally object to setting up any LNC
discussion
forum, bulletin board, Facebook group, PHP setup or server, or
system
other than the existing e-mail list and our in-person meetings.
JBH
------------
Joe Bishop-Henchman
LNC Member (At-Large)
[2]joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
[3]www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
On 2018-08-20 06:59, Richard Longstreth wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> I appreciate your input as well. From my point of view I have to
say
> that if I see an email I wish to respond to, I will. The reason is
> that chatter and discussion is exactly how deliberation takes
place.
> For too long the LNC has accomplished less than what it is capable
of
> and that is at least in some part to people not being actively
engaged
> in email discussion. You can review the past. Typically I don't
> respond where unecessary, however, I reserve the right and
encourage
> all LNC members to respond to whatever email they see fit.
>
> As far as an off email discussion forum where business is not done
but
> things are workshopped: I would think that solution to be amicable
to
> you as it greatly reduces non essential email and chatter to
another
> area where those interested would be free to peruse and those who
just
> want business could just pay attention to email.
>
> Bottom line: Everyone in the LNC was elected to do a job. I do not
> believe that we can handicap anyone's ability to do that job by
> telling them they can only respond to email if it's new to the
> conversation, they've deliberated themselves for hours, the email
> contains more than a dis/agreement statement (heck a vote is
simply I
> agree or disagree with no explanation needed), etc.
>
> I appreciate your comments and respect your thought process but I
am
> happy to see the LNC becoming more active and encourage each
member to
> serve in whatever capacity they see fit.
>
> Richard Longstreth
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018, 22:57 Caryn Ann Harlos
<[4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Chuck, you wrote an extraordinarily long email. One thing to
>> clarify for those who do not know- Chuck and I are very good
>> friends, and his email didn’t bother me personally in the least
as
>> we have built that kind of relationship.
>>
>> But in thematic overview, I emphatically disagree. You spent a
>> great deal of time trying to make things into your own image.
>>
>> I will focus on one unspoken factor here: gender.
>>
>> And I know some of the other women will want to scream. I am NOT
>> speaking for you. But I am talking about norms here and not
>> individuals.
>>
>> My communication style (and since that Google memo came out which
>> caused such a hubbub this subject has been an interest to me,
I.e.,
>> was he right that tech companies don’t have as many women because
>> they basically require women to act like men? And I wondered the
>> same about politics) is very very common to women.
>>
>> I work in a female dominated industry (insurance legal defense
and
>> the paralegal field is very pink collar) and this is not unusual.
>> This is how we speak.
>>
>> So Chuck while I think there was a lot of good advice that I
>> certainly will take for efficiency reasons, I ask you to consider
>> that you are asking me to communicate like a typical corporate
male,
>> and I must decline.
>>
>> And here is the funny thing about all the gendered discussion
that
>> has come up recently. I am not even a feminist. I never paid
>> attention to this stuff until it hit me in the face last year
when
>> the LNC sat there and let another LNC member basically say to me
>> that my husband will just give me a position and absolutely no
>> discussion was held about that. In fact when I tried to object I
was
>> summarily shut down. I didn’t want to escalate as a Policy
Manual
>> complaint as I felt it was all unintentional but unintentional
>> sexism is still sexism. It set me down a path of examining
>> inadvertent and unrecognized gender biases in our communications.
>>
>> I think the LNC and the Party have a long way to go to truly
>> incorporating women into its spaces. Most Libertarian women tend
to
>> very analytical (I certainly am
>> That) with masculine communication styles. If we are going to
grow,
>> we have to break the mold and realize heart and chatter is
>> important. Back and forth is how relationships form.
>>
>> So I decline Chuck. And the only real criticism I have of your
>> missive is that you could have taken your iwn interpersonal
advice
>> and called me first.
>>
>> You are one of my closest LP friends. That’s not a lot to ask.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 6:39 PM Chuck Moulton
<[5]chuck at moulton.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Libertarian National Committee members,
>>>
>>> I write in my personal capacity as a life member of the
>>> Libertarian
>>> Party, not representing any of the bodies I serve on. I
apologize
>>> in
>>> advance for the length of this email... it has been brewing for
a
>>> while.
>>>
>>> I'm extremely concerned by the conduct of the LNC on the
business
>>> email
>>> list. I want to speak not on the substantive business itself,
but
>>>
>>> rather on the volume and style of email communication.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally, I believe some LNC members misunderstand the
entire
>>>
>>> purpose of the business email list and are trying to
>>> re-conceptualize it
>>> into something completely different. You are on the business
list
>>> as a
>>> deliberative body to discuss the business of the party and vote
on
>>>
>>> motions taking action as a board. Some of you appear to be
using
>>> it as
>>> a 24/7 stream-of-consciousness liberty rant.
>>>
>>> The volume of email on this list is NOT NORMAL. It is
>>> emphatically
>>> ABNORMAL. Some of you may not be aware of how crazy it is
because
>>> you
>>> are new to the LNC. I invite you to look at the volume and
>>> content of
>>> email on the list from 4 or 5 years ago. Although 1 person is
the
>>>
>>> primary culprit of the ongoing problems -- and I'm not going to
be
>>>
>>> diplomatic or pull punches: that person is Caryn Ann Harlos (who
I
>>>
>>> supported in convention and voted for) --, I suspect some of the
>>> newer
>>> members are following her lead to varying degrees with respect
to
>>> how
>>> they conduct themselves. This is a BIG problem.
>>>
>>> I completely agree with Joe Bishop-Henchmen, who recently sent
the
>>>
>>> following 2 emails:
>>>
>>> [6]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
>>>> Efforts to work are welcome. Sending 68 emails in four days
>>> saying
>>>> the same thing over and over, rushing to immediately respond to
>>>> every. single. email. as if one has a duty to rise to the
>>> challenge
>>>> for truth, justice, and the American Way, is counterproductive.
>>>>
>>>> I often sleep on an email before I reply to it, if it's
>>> important but
>>>> not urgent. Most people are very careful with how they write
>>> emails,
>>>> with meanings that take a couple of readings. If I rush to get
>>> my
>>>> word in edgewise, I miss that and people notice that I'm not
>>> hearing
>>>> what they're trying to say.
>>>
>>> [7]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
>>>> if it's my email inbox you're cluttering up, it's not merely a
>>>> personal matter. It's a basic courtesy that every workplace
>>> teaches.
>>>>
>>>> We should want this list to be a place to do business, not a
>>> Facebook
>>>> argument thread.
>>>
>>> The LNC is supposed to act as a deliberative body on the LNC
>>> business
>>> list. Many of you are not being deliberative. I think many of
>>> you do
>>> not want to be deliberative.
>>>
>>> More than 90% of the emails sent to your list are completely
>>> useless.
>>> In fact, saying 10% of the emails are useful is extremely
>>> generous. The
>>> reason this happens is some of you lack basic email courtesy.
>>>
>>> Before discussing what sorts of emails should not be sent, I
think
>>> it
>>> may help to step back and consider why email courtesy and the
>>> style of
>>> email communication is important.
>>>
>>> First, it takes longer for 1 person to compose an email than for
1
>>>
>>> person to read that email; however, when 25 LNC members +
several
>>> staff
>>> members + many other interested LP members read that email, you
>>> need to
>>> multiply the individual reading time for each email by the
number
>>> of
>>> people reading it. For example, if an email takes 5 minutes to
>>> compose
>>> and 1 minute for each individual to read and 40 people read that
>>> email,
>>> then a 5 minute investment by the sender costs 40 minutes for
the
>>> recipients. That may be all well and good if the content is
>>> useful; on
>>> the other hand, if the content is useless, then you have wasted
a
>>> lot of
>>> time.
>>>
>>> Second, when the total email volume is so high that it is not
>>> practical
>>> to read all the email, recipients must skip some email. While
>>> trying to
>>> cut out reading the useless email, other list members may
>>> inadvertently
>>> miss important email. If the volume of email were lower and the
>>> signal
>>> to noise ratio were higher, then important emails would not be
>>> overlooked.
>>>
>>> In a deliberative body, members ought to deliberate, which means
>>> "engage
>>> in long and careful consideration". Somewhere between reading
>>> something
>>> and responding to it, your brain ought to be involved in the
>>> process.
>>> Instead of simply replying to another LNC member's thoughts by
>>> robotically and immediately answering the question "What is my
>>> opinion
>>> on what he or she just said?", you should be giving yourself
>>> several
>>> minutes (or ideally hours) to digest what was said. You should
be
>>>
>>> asking yourself "Would my response add anything to the
>>> discussion?",
>>> "Have I already said this before?", "Would someone reading my
>>> reply
>>> learn something new?", "Does it need to be sent to the whole
>>> list?",
>>> "Could I write this more succinctly?", etc.
>>>
>>> Here are a few steps LNC members could take to use basic email
>>> courtesy
>>> and decrease the insane list volume:
>>>
>>> 1. Eliminate all emails which simply agree or disagree without
>>> reasoning. About half the emails to the list are things like "I
>>> agree
>>> with X." or "+1" or "so. much. this." or "me too", or the
opposite
>>>
>>> (disagreeing). I believe this is the Facebook culture
permeating
>>> and
>>> infecting email lists. You all apparently want a like button.
>>> This is
>>> completely useless and wastes everyone's time. Instead I would
>>> suggest
>>> either making additional discussion points which have not been
>>> brought
>>> up yet, or just not emailing at all. If one absolutely must
feed
>>> ego by
>>> hacking together a like button, I would suggest just replying to
>>> the
>>> sender directly rather than to the whole list. Or you could
>>> create a
>>> Twitter account that posts a link to the LNC business post
>>> followed by a
>>> thumbs up emoji or a frownie face.
>>>
>>> 2. Do not post redundant discussion -- even when it is actually
>>> germane.
>>> Some of you post identical talking points over and over and over
>>>
>>> again. We get your position. Your redundancy is not winning
you
>>> any
>>> converts; it is just annoying people. If you want to add to the
>>> discussion, then you should make points you have not brought up
>>> before.
>>>
>>> 3. Reply directly to people rather than to the whole list.
>>> Frequently
>>> LNC members ask the LNC for help on some task and their
colleagues
>>>
>>> oblige. At least 75% of the time they could just email a reply
>>> directly
>>> rather than CCing the rest of the LNC. Whenever you send an
>>> email, you
>>> should be asking yourself whether it is actually useful
>>> information for
>>> everybody or just targeted at one person.
>>>
>>> 4. Trim your emails. Some LNC members complained in the past
>>> about 300
>>> links at the bottom of the email. This only happens because
most
>>> of you
>>> copy the last 50 years of discussion every single email. Most
of
>>> what
>>> you haphazardly quote is completely irrelevant. In more than
half
>>> of
>>> the emails you send, you are only addressing a single sentence
or
>>> paragraph of the last email. Cut out the rest. Only quote what
>>> you are
>>> actually replying to. That makes email discussion a lot easier
to
>>>
>>> follow -- and has the added benefit of taking less space and
>>> avoiding
>>> 300 links as garbage. I would suggest emailing on actual
>>> computers
>>> rather than phones, but note even phones allow quoting: on an
>>> iPhone
>>> highlight 1 sentence, then click the reply button.
>>>
>>> 5. Think before you send. In most cases it is possible (and
>>> advisable)
>>> to sit on an email for 24 hours. If a day is too long, then try
>>> waiting
>>> 4 hours. Waiting can be calming, make your reply more logical,
>>> and help
>>> you avoid writing things which are misinterpreted. I've found
>>> when I
>>> sit on an email for 24 hours, 75% of the time I decide not to
send
>>> it.
>>> The other 25% of the time, I make several edits which fix
spelling
>>> or
>>> grammar errors, make my point clearer, tone it down, or avoid
>>> misinterpretation.
>>>
>>> 6. Consolidate emails. When I am following an email discussion,
>>> sometimes I see 4 different points by 4 different people on the
>>> same
>>> topic which I want to address. Instead of sending 4 emails, I
>>> send one
>>> email which quotes each of them and replies appropriately. This
>>> saves
>>> on email volume and also helps you compose your thoughts better
>>> and be
>>> less redundant.
>>>
>>> 7. Change the subject line when the thread shifts focus. This
can
>>> make
>>> the discussion easier to follow rather than having to sift
through
>>>
>>> emails with completely unrelated subjects.
>>>
>>> 8. Check your spelling, grammar, and usage. I cringe every time
I
>>> read
>>> emails misusing "its" and "it's", "your" and "you're", etc. We
>>> are the
>>> third largest political party in the United States... when our
>>> national
>>> committee writes unprofessionally it reflects poorly on the
>>> organization. (Many people use bad spelling, grammar, and usage
>>> as a
>>> proxy to infer stupidity or poor education.) This is especially
>>> important with respect to language on which you vote.
>>>
>>> 9. If you are feeling hotheaded or think something you are
saying
>>> may be
>>> misinterpreted, then get a second opinion before sending it.
Ask
>>> your
>>> spouse or friend to read over your email.
>>>
>>> 10. Respect the opinions of others. It is incredibly rude to
>>> browbeat a
>>> colleague because you don't like his or her vote. The vote
speaks
>>> for
>>> itself. Allow others to disagree in peace. If you actually
>>> believe you
>>> can change someone's mind, it would be more respectful to pick
up
>>> the
>>> phone and call your colleague to have a real discussion (i.e.,
>>> actively
>>> listen seeing where he is coming from and how you can change his
>>> mind,
>>> instead of just talking at him) rather than publicly lambasting
>>> him for
>>> the vote.
>>>
>>> 11. You do not need to reply to everything. Don't worry: we
>>> probably
>>> already know your opinion without you replying anyway. Failing
to
>>>
>>> respond to an email does not mean you concede a debate point.
>>> Also,
>>> your audience will not assume you are sleeping at the wheel. If
>>> just
>>> two people on a list believe they must respond to every email,
>>> then that
>>> by definition will create an infinite number of emails.
>>>
>>> 12. Concision is better than verbosity. Sometimes it takes
longer
>>> to
>>> write a short message than a long message; however, your
>>> colleagues will
>>> appreciate the former. As FDR once said: "Be sincere, be brief,
>>> be seated."
>>>
>>> 13. Remember the audience and the purpose of the list. If you
>>> wouldn't
>>> say something in a LNC meeting, you probably shouldn't say it on
>>> the LNC
>>> business list.
>>>
>>> I believe if all LNC members mostly followed those bits of basic
>>> email
>>> courtesy, the volume of the list would be dramatically reduced
>>> without
>>> sacrificing any of the actual discussion.
>>>
>>> I see the LNC is now discussing moving discussion to phpBB.
That
>>> is a
>>> TERRIBLE idea. The only reason this list is dysfunctional in
the
>>> first
>>> place is several members -- particularly Caryn Ann Harlos -- are
>>> not
>>> following basic email courtesy. Moving all or part of the
>>> discussion to
>>> another forum would just make that discussion even harder to
>>> follow.
>>> Additionally, it would further exacerbate the volume problem.
The
>>> very
>>> people causing the problem in the first place are those who want
>>> to move
>>> to a different venue. They want to do this because other media
>>> are more
>>> conducive to what they actually want: a 24/7
>>> stream-of-consciousness
>>> liberty rant. Email is more deliberative than phpBB. phpBB is
>>> more
>>> deliberative than Slack. Slack is more deliberative than
>>> Facebook.
>>> Facebook is more deliberative than texting. The LNC should be a
>>> deliberative group.
>>>
>>> If some members of the LNC are unable to act with a modicum of
>>> courtesy,
>>> there is a less restrictive alternative than moving the
>>> substantive
>>> discussion to a medium less suited to that purpose. Instead the
>>> LNC
>>> could create a second list called (for example) "useless-drivel"
>>> and LNC
>>> members could send their extra messages to that list.
>>>
>>> I have seen some LNC members defend the practice of subjecting
>>> others to
>>> their pollution. Recently, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>
>>> [8]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
>>>> Not everyone communicates the same way Joe, and we all have to
>>> be
>>>> tolerant of that.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Your way is not my way. My way is not your way. And that’s
>>> okay.
>>>
>>> [9]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
>>>> Joe with all due respect you signed up to part of a group of
>>> diverse
>>>> people, not to dictate to them that they must conform to your
>>>> communication style. I have to tell you that I have zero
>>> intention of
>>>> changing my practice
>>>
>>> [10]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
>>>> PS: I counted them. It wasn't 68. It was in the 40s because I
>>>> interact with each person's comments. Do people post to the
list
>>> not
>>>> to get a response?? I am sorry, but it is NOT unreasonable to
>>> have
>>>> that many emails when someone is very very active in a group of
>>> 17
>>>> people. [...] And like it or not, dealing with this email list
>>> is
>>>> part of the job. If we met more often, there would be less
>>> emails. As
>>>> I say periodically, the fact that we do not meet monthly is
>>>> ridiculous to me.
>>>
>>> First, she says she must "interact with each person's comments",
>>> which
>>> is ridiculous. This is the Facebook culture of reply to
>>> everything or
>>> you concede the debate.
>>>
>>> Second, she says dealing with this email list is part of the
job.
>>> The
>>> right to talk does not imply a right to be heard. Time is a
>>> scarce
>>> commodity and everyone sensibly makes efficient use of his or or
>>> time
>>> through filtering. Chair Sarwark, regional representative Lark,
>>> and
>>> at-large member Bishop-Henchman do not write the business list
>>> often,
>>> but when they do their emails are well-reasoned and people read
>>> them.
>>> In contrast, some LNC members have suggested that Ms. Harlos's
>>> messages
>>> go directly into the trash or their spam folder. If I were on
the
>>> LNC,
>>> I would strongly consider setting up such an email filter. If
the
>>>
>>> audience isn't listening, that's the fault of the speaker, not
the
>>>
>>> audience. Be more judicious with your emails and people will
not
>>> skip
>>> or skim them.
>>>
>>> Third, not all communication styles are okay. A bulk email
>>> marketer
>>> could say spamming people with unsolicited email is his
>>> communication
>>> style. Someone else could say profanity laden rants are his
>>> communication style. Neither would be acceptable in ordinary
>>> society or
>>> in the workplace. When you send emails to a list read by 30-40
>>> people,
>>> your communication style imposes costs on others. Ignoring
those
>>> costs
>>> displays a lack of empathy (bordering on autism). When someone
>>> sends
>>> hundreds of useless emails wasting colleagues' time, it would be
>>> charitable to call such behavior rude; I would call it abusive.
>>>
>>> This is going to be a long and frustrating LNC term if some of
you
>>>
>>> continue disrespecting your colleagues. It doesn't have to be
>>> that way.
>>> The LNC can be (and has been) collegial.
>>>
>>> With all that said, I advocate the following actions:
>>>
>>> 1. I ask the LNC not to move substantive discussion to a
different
>>>
>>> communication medium than the LNC business email list. As an
>>> interested
>>> LP member, I would like to continue to follow such discussion.
>>>
>>> 2. I implore LNC members to individually consider the costs
their
>>> communication styles impose on others, and to individually make
an
>>>
>>> effort to be more respectful to their LNC colleagues (and to
>>> interested
>>> observers) by following basic email courtesy.
>>>
>>> 3. If the list volume continues to be insane, I request that the
>>> LNC
>>> formally adopt the Bishop-Henchman "$1 per email after 5 emails
a
>>> day"
>>> rule in the LNC Policy Manual at the upcoming in-person LNC
>>> meeting. (I
>>> do not comment on whether this would be allowed under the bylaws
>>> and
>>> rules, and I would gladly recuse myself if it were appealed; I
>>> simply am
>>> declaring I think it would be a good idea.) At least if rude
LNC
>>> members waste many hours of your (really, our) time, the LP
ought
>>> to get
>>> some money out of it to build the party.
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for your time.
>>>
>>> Chuck Moulton
>>> Life Member and Monthly Pledger, Libertarian Party
>> --
>>
>> --
>>
>> IN LIBERTY,
>> CARYN ANN HARLOS
>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -
>> Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>>
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> _We defend your rights_
>> _And oppose the use of force_
>> _Taxation is theft_
> --
>
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA,
WY)
> Libertarian National Committee
> [11]richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 931.538.9300
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary
- [12]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
2. mailto:joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
3. http://www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
5. mailto:chuck at moulton.org
6. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015056.html
7. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015058.html
8. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015057.html
9. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015066.html
10. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015067.html
11. mailto:richard.longstreth at lp.org
12. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list